View Full Version : US inability to rein in Israel will fuel extremism in region
US inability to rein in Israel will fuel extremism in region
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/236/13062030.jpg
Moderate camp among the Palestinians has lost the battle and the possibility of a negotiated two-state solution seems remote.
Capitulating to the intransigence of Israel's hardliners, the White House proved itself unable to secure even its most recent, downsized demand for a colony freeze to allow direct talks between the Palestinians and Israelis to resume.
Like a fretful parent with a bullying spoilt child, US President Barack Obama spent the last month cajoling and pleading with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop Israel's illegal colony building programme on occupied Palestinian land for just 90 days.
He threw in a raft of incentives — the gift of 20 advanced F-35 fighter jets; a pledge to veto any anti-Israeli resolutions at the United Nations — but all were brushed away by a petulant hand.
Already in receipt of $3 billion US aid a year and unconditional diplomatic support, Israel clearly sees no reason to offer concessions for what it can probably get for free.
In June 2009, Obama gave his famous Cairo speech in which he reached out to the world's 1.4 billion Muslims. In the course of his eloquent and stirring oratory, he made this unequivocal statement: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli colonies".
Read the Full article:
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/us-inability-to-rein-in-israel-will-fuel-extremism-in-region-1.727307
NightTrain
12-13-2010, 03:41 AM
Abso -
Here's a bit about this guy. He's a bit over the edge.
By Abdel Bari Atwan, Special to Gulf News
He was born on February 17, 1950 in Deir el-Balah, a Palestinian refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, two years after the creation of Israel. His Palestinian parents Zilfa and Muhammad Atwan lived in the Palestinian seaside village of Isdud.
Speaking about Iran's nuclear capability in an interview on Lebanese television in June 2007, Atwan stated, "If the Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square and dance with delight." He further stated in the case of war, Iran would retaliate against its Arab neighbors, American bases in the Gulf and "Allah willing, it will attack Israel, as well."
In March 2008, Atwan said that the Mercaz HaRav shooting, in which a Palestinian gunmen killed eight students (aged 15 to 26), "was justified." He added that the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva is responsible for "hatching Israeli extremists and fundamentalists" and that the celebrations in Gaza following the attack symbolized "the courage of the Palestinian nation."
Abso -
Here's a bit about this guy. He's a bit over the edge.
By Abdel Bari Atwan, Special to Gulf News
I agree, he is a stupid extreme reporter, but aside from his views on other subjects, have you read this article, what do you think about it ?
and the most important part i found in the articles is that:
In June 2009, Obama gave his famous Cairo speech in which he reached out to the world's 1.4 billion Muslims. In the course of his eloquent and stirring oratory, he made this unequivocal statement: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli colonies".
i am already aware that USA never agreed with occupying the palestinian lands, and that all american officials still call them "Occupied Territories", USA has never agreed with the israelian demands to annex those lands, but what exactly is US doing to force israel to go back to 1967, how can it admit that israel is holding those lands unlawfully while not doing anything to make it leave them ???
USA has always linked between its support to any country and obligating this country to abide by international law, US linked between the aid to egypt and the peace treaty with israel, so if Egypt cancelled the treaty, the aid will stop, then how can US still pays Israel 3 billion $ a year while its a country that is occupying lands illegally !!!!!!!!!!!!!!, does that mean that US agree with breaking the international law ?
how long will the soft tone continue with israel, is US that weak !!!
NightTrain
12-13-2010, 03:50 AM
I think he's off-the-charts extreme and people in the middle east shouldn't be reading his sort of venomous journalism that is designed to whip the masses into a suicide bombing frenzy aimed at the USA & Israel.
What is your take?
I think he's off-the-charts extreme and people in the middle east shouldn't be reading his sort of venomous journalism that is designed to whip the masses into a suicide bombing frenzy aimed at the USA & Israel.
What is your take?
my opinion is that GOD gave me a mind, i can read anything without following it, or that would make me an animal, dont you agree ?
i have my free will, i read his article, i agreed with it, that doesnt mean that i agree with his personality or his other views, agreeing with someone on something doesnt mean that you agree with him on everything, dont you agree with me on that ?
anyway, i dont read his articles on daily basis, i didnt even knew the guy until today, i just found this article by coincidence while i was searching for something on google, liked it, agreed with it, posted it.
you should read it too no matter who wrote it, then you should tell me your opinion about what is written, not about who wrote it, i am still waiting for your reviw of that article :salute:
NightTrain
12-13-2010, 04:43 AM
I agree, he is a stupid extreme reporter, but aside from his views on other subjects, have you read this article, what do you think about it ?
In a perfect world, Abso, a journalist with his extreme views might be able to present an objective article. He skewed the article to make his case that Israel is evil. Nothing new here.
The sad part about it is that there are millions of muslims that read that article, just as you did, and sagely nodded their heads in agreement with everything he said because they're not getting objective news.
and the most important part i found in the articles is that:
In June 2009, Obama gave his famous Cairo speech in which he reached out to the world's 1.4 billion Muslims. In the course of his eloquent and stirring oratory, he made this unequivocal statement: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli colonies".
We have a fool for a President. He does not know what he is doing and he had almost no experience before being elected.
We're sorry for the confusion. We'll try to do better next time we elect a President.
i am already aware that USA never agreed with occupying the palestinian lands, and that all american officials still call them "Occupied Territories", USA has never agreed with the israelian demands to annex those lands, but what exactly is US doing to force israel to go back to 1967, how can it admit that israel is holding those lands unlawfully while not doing anything to make it leave them ???
USA has always linked between its support to any country and obligating this country to abide by international law, US linked between the aid to egypt and the peace treaty with israel, so if Egypt cancelled the treaty, the aid will stop, then how can US still pays Israel 3 billion $ a year while its a country that is occupying lands illegally !!!!!!!!!!!!!!, does that mean that US agree with breaking the international law ?
how long will the soft tone continue with israel, is US that weak !!!
First, what international law are they breaking?
Again, as I said in the other thread, Israel kept some of the land they gained after being attacked by your country, Egypt, and 2 other countries.
That happens sometimes when you lose a war. It's legitimate, it's fair, and most importantly, it's done. This all went down 43 years ago, time to accept it and move ahead.
darin
12-13-2010, 06:50 AM
I love when I read about the US helping Israel defend itself and it's security against Palestinian terrorists.
Gaffer
12-13-2010, 09:25 AM
Abso do actually buy into this article? I thought you were smarter than that and more moderate. This "article" is just so much made up crap.
He really needs to take up writing for television drama instead of news magazines. A propaganda piece to stir the hearts and minds of the not so bright.
Now go find an Israeli article about the same subject and get their view point.
Kathianne
12-13-2010, 10:06 AM
In a perfect world, Abso, a journalist with his extreme views might be able to present an objective article. He skewed the article to make his case that Israel is evil. Nothing new here.
The sad part about it is that there are millions of muslims that read that article, just as you did, and sagely nodded their heads in agreement with everything he said because they're not getting objective news.
We have a fool for a President. He does not know what he is doing and he had almost no experience before being elected.
We're sorry for the confusion. We'll try to do better next time we elect a President.
First, what international law are they breaking?
Again, as I said in the other thread, Israel kept some of the land they gained after being attacked by your country, Egypt, and 2 other countries.
That happens sometimes when you lose a war. It's legitimate, it's fair, and most importantly, it's done. This all went down 43 years ago, time to accept it and move ahead.
I'm assuming that Abso is in agreement with this from the article:
...Impervious to criticism, unhindered by sanctions, indifferent to international legislation and dismissive of the UN Security Council's many resolutions condemning it, Israel acts with impunity. And with this final surrender, Obama has lost any semblance of control over Junior...
The UN creates more anti-Israel resolutions and condemnation of Israel than Bayer has aspirin. Hell, they have a special meeting just to give vent to all the complaints against Israel, btw, Good on Canada:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_un_insult_9rjkaIjzDs8pUnWFMBXoCK
The UN's 9/11 insult
Last Updated: 5:08 AM, December 12, 2010
Posted: 12:25 AM, December 12, 2010
Next year, as New Yorkers observe the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the United Nations is planning a celebration.
It’s perverse. It’s inexcusable. And it’s business as usual in Turtle Bay.
September 2011, you see, also marks the 10th anniversary of the Durban Conference on Racism, a weeklong farce that accused Israel of being the world’s most racist nation and sought to undermine its very right to exist.
So last month Yemen sponsored a resolution calling for the anniversary meet-up. The idea is to create a forum for yet another round of Israel-bashing hate speech.
In a sane world, such a party would be ridden out of town.
At the UN, the resolution passed 121 to 19, with 35 abstentions.
Canada is fighting back by boycotting the coming “hatefest,” which it says scapegoats Israel and “promotes racism rather than combats it.” If only the United States were just as blunt.
“My delegation regrets that this resolution contains elements that require us to vote no,” said a US diplomat, who noted that he was “deeply troubled” that New York would be the venue.
Troubled ain’t the half of it.
There’s only one reason the new conference will convene in New York in September 2011: to rub salt in the city’s wounds, to dance on the city’s graves...
From the article Abso posted we find this nugget, totally unsubstantiated:
...Obama's position was undoubtedly weakened by November's mid-term elections — the results of which were heralded as a triumph by Washington's most powerful pro-Israeli lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). An overwhelming majority of senators are members of AIPAC whose policies closely mirror those of Netanyahu's right-wing Likud party...
Then there's this:
...With the US already embroiled in two unwinnable conflicts (in Iraq and Afghanistan) and apparently losing the ‘war on terror' in general, the country can ill afford to launch an attack on Iran — though this is clearly what Israel is pressing for now that it has sidelined the peace process.
Israel may also be preparing to take on Hamas and Hezbollah...
One of the surprises regarding pressure on US towards Iran uncovered by Wikileaks, was the it was Muslim countries. Israel kept stressing diplomacy and appeals to Iranian people.
Israel has always been prepared to take on Hamas and Hizbollah, that is they are the reasons that peace has been impossible to find and Israel insists on security first.
One last graph from the article, truly Orwellian:
...In the 17 years since the Oslo Accords were first signed, Israel's colony population doubled from 250,000 to around 500,000, yet the Palestinians made one concession after another in their desire for peace: Fatah leaders renounced terrorism, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) started collaborating with the Israeli military in the interests of ‘security', Palestinian representatives recommended peaceful relations with Israel throughout the Arab world and discouraged the embargoes and boycotts of Israeli goods that might have brought the Zionist state to its senses...
Kathianne
12-13-2010, 10:54 AM
Just came across this. Yes, it's official for the UN:
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/ngo.htm
Here's some of the meetings they are encouraging:
http://unispal.un.org/ngoactionnews.nsf/1c0b3ab87dc4f2f8852568f8007759fd/c99f220a0bdc6581852577f50076473b?OpenDocument
27 November – 10 December 2010
North America
Jewish Voice for Peace, Adalah-NY, Brooklyn for Peace, Code Pink, Jews Say No!, and Students for Justice in Palestine-Columbia held a demonstration on 10 December at TIAA-CREF’s offices in New York, to protest the financial service’s investment in companies that profit from the Israeli occupation. Supporters who were unable to join the protest are invited to sign a related petition.
The American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) has launched its Winter Bazaar 2010, which will run until 21 December, in Washington, DC. Proceeds from sales of Middle Eastern maps, manuscripts and art, will benefit the ATFP as well as the American Charities for Palestine.
CODEPINK will lead a delegation to Gaza from 30 January to 6 February, to get a firsthand look at conditions on the ground.
J Street will hold a conference on peace in the Middle East called “Giving Voice to our Values,” from 26 February to 1 March, in Washington, DC.
The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation urges Americans to tell their Members of Congress to put US -- and not Israeli -- interests first, when it comes to budget decisions.
Creative Nonviolent Resistance against Injustice and PalestinianGandhis.org are selling Fair-Traded Extra Virgin Olive Oil from Palestine in order to benefit Palestinian farmers. All profits will be donated to the newly created Center for Palestine Studies at Columbia University. For more information, contact Dennis Loh at: lohdennis@gmail.com.
Europe
The Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC), as part of its Boycott Israeli Blood Diamond Campaign, will have a stall in Galway on 11 December and in Dublin on 18 December, to highlight the trade in Israeli “blood diamonds” and collect signatures for a petition to the Retail Jewellers of Ireland.
The Queens University Belfast Palestine Solidarity Society will host a discussion and screening of “Little Town of Bethlehem,” a film about the growing non-violence movement in the Middle East, in Belfast on 15 December.
Belfast Friends of Palestine will hold a vigil, on 27 December in Belfast, to mark the second anniversary of the start of Operation Cast Lead.
The Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC) reports with satisfaction that the Edinburgh Council rejected on 10 December Veolia's bid to manage public services in that city. SPSC notes that Veolia, a French multinational, works with Israeli authorities to provide waste and transport services to Israel's illegal settlements.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Stop the War Coalition, British Muslim Initiative, Friends of Al Aqsa, Palestinian Forum in Britain, and Viva Palestina will hold a vigil outside the Israeli embassy in London on 27 December to mark the second anniversary of the start of Operation Cast Lead. There will also be a rally for Gaza on 18 January, also in London.
Asia and the Pacific
Justice for Palestine – Brisbane is holding “Don’t buy apartheid for Christmas,” a protest event targeting Israeli products, on 11 December in Brisbane, Australia.
The Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine will host a dinner and forum entitled “Education Under Occupation,” featuring the Vice-Chancellor of Bethlehem University, on 17 December, in Newtown, New South Wales, Australia.
Australians for Palestine has posted a video of Australian activists demonstrating earlier this month in an Australian shopping centre against products made from the Israeli exploitation of Palestinian resources.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel held a Human Rights Day march in Tel Aviv on 10 December, to protest, in part, the occupation.
Stop the Wall and ItIsApartheid.org will hold a screening of videos from the Israeli Apartheid Short Film Contest on 13 December in the West Bank city of Al-Bireh. Supporters can vote for their favourite videos online.
Al-Haq launched on 9 December a short documentary film entitled “Beyond Words: Palestinian Voices in Search of Justice”.
International
The Fahamu Refugee Programme introduces its website (www.srlan.org/beta), a portion of which focuses on Palestinian refugees. The site includes contact information for resource persons who can provide confidential help to legal advisers who are dealing with Palestinian refugee cases. In addition, legal advisers and refugees may subscribe to a related listserv.
United Nations
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OCHA-OPT) published on 7 December its 2011 Consolidated Appeal (CAP), which requests US $575 million for 213 projects, to advance humanitarian efforts for the most vulnerable Palestinians, and where Palestinian Authority outreach is limited, namely the Gaza Strip, Area C, including the seam zones, and East Jerusalem. OCHA– OPT also published its weekly Protection of Civilians report, covering 1 to 7 December.
The United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Maxwell Gaylard, issued a statement on 7 December, expressing concern about the forced closure on 30 November by the local authorities in Gaza of all Gaza-based offices of the non-governmental organization Sharek Youth Forum.
* * *
This page may contain links to third-party Web sites. The linked sites are not under the control of the United Nations and the United Nations is not responsible for the content of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site. The United Nations provides these links only as a convenience, and the inclusion of a link or reference does not imply endorsement of the linked site by the United Nations. This newsletter is a project of the Division for Palestinian Rights, and is intended to provide information on NGO activities relevant to the question of Palestine . NGOs interested in contributing information on their activities should communicate it by Email The Division reserves the right to make the final selection with regard to material to be included in this newsletter. It cannot take responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
I love when I read about the US helping Israel defend itself and it's security against Palestinian terrorists.
So you think all palestinians are terrorists ?
In a perfect world, Abso, a journalist with his extreme views might be able to present an objective article. He skewed the article to make his case that Israel is evil. Nothing new here.
the objective wasnt really to make israel evil, but to let US know that by supporting israel and failing to stop its colonization policy, then more rage and hatred and terrorism will exist, as i said in the other article, the main reasons for terrorism against USA is its blind support to israel and supporting its colonization policy.
The sad part about it is that there are millions of muslims that read that article, just as you did, and sagely nodded their heads in agreement with everything he said because they're not getting objective news.
not millions at all, the article readers will never exceed few hundreds or thousands at most, i can assure you of that, and i didnt agree with everything he said, i just agreed with the main principle which i already stated in my answer to your topic, that supporting israel blindly and allowing it to destroy palestinian homes to build new homes for israelians, and to build more illegal settlements, that will only lead to more fighting, the most basic solutions for the problem, is to force israel to go back to 1967 borders, then fight hamas with american troops if they still want to fight israel.
We have a fool for a President. He does not know what he is doing and he had almost no experience before being elected.
We're sorry for the confusion. We'll try to do better next time we elect a President.
is it fool to bring justice and return a stolen land and stop the occupation ?
Again, as I said in the other thread, Israel kept some of the land they gained after being attacked by your country, Egypt, and 2 other countries.
That happens sometimes when you lose a war. It's legitimate, it's fair, and most importantly, it's done. This all went down 43 years ago, time to accept it and move ahead.
where exactly in the international law is it said that the country has the right to keep the land of the attacker, can you show me, how is it ligitimate ?
and as always, all americans think that israel was attacked first, while israel wasnt attacked first, just because it thought someone was going to attack it, doesnt make it an attack, israel attacked first, and thats the fact, call it preemptive war or any name you would like, but that doesnt mean that israel was attacked first, Nasser moved the army to the borders because he got info from the Soviet Union telling him that Israel is preparing to attack syria, so he massed his army at the borders to force israel to back up and not attack syria, but he didnt start the war and he wasnt going to do so, he didnt even have enough weapons, the egyptian army was still in need of more weapons to engage in any war.
Just came across this. Yes, it's official for the UN:
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/ngo.htm
Here's some of the meetings they are encouraging:
http://unispal.un.org/ngoactionnews.nsf/1c0b3ab87dc4f2f8852568f8007759fd/c99f220a0bdc6581852577f50076473b?OpenDocument
Just came across this. Yes, it's official for the UN:
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/ngo.htm
Here's some of the meetings they are encouraging:
http://unispal.un.org/ngoactionnews.nsf/1c0b3ab87dc4f2f8852568f8007759fd/c99f220a0bdc6581852577f50076473b?OpenDocument
although thats a long article and if i posted it then my post will get deleted, but anyway, whats your point in posting it, do you support ending the israelian colonization or do you want it to continue ???
you are confusing me, so pick a side ;)
Abso do actually buy into this article? I thought you were smarter than that and more moderate. This "article" is just so much made up crap.
no i dont buy into his opinions, but i just agree with the main idea of the article, that supporting colonization will only breed more violence and terrorism which i am sure that you and me and everyone doesnt want.
what do you expect when you tell someone that they lost their land, they wont get it back, and they just have to get used to the idea !!!
palestinians felt injustice when their land was taken from them in 1948, then even more injustice when more of their land were taken from them in 1967, how can you expect them to get used to that, they will just fight until they get their land back, all they ask for is the 1967 borders which is the legal borders of the israelian state, all the lands outside their borders is just illegally occupied territories, and they should return it.
He really needs to take up writing for television drama instead of news magazines. A propaganda piece to stir the hearts and minds of the not so bright.
i dont care if he should write drama for TV or stop writing at all, i dont care if he dies or lives or vanished from the whole world, i just saw and idea, and copied it, i dont agree with him personally, and i dont agree with his extremism, i have my own opinions, it just happened that one of his opinions was like mine, thats all.
Now go find an Israeli article about the same subject and get their view point.
[/QUOTE]
actually i didnt search for that article, it was just a coincidence, as you see i stopped posting articles about israel and palestine a long time ago, this was just a coincidence, and i only posted it because its mainly about USA, not israel and palestine, if you have any israeli article about the subject then please post it and i will gladly read it.
Kathianne
12-13-2010, 12:25 PM
although thats a long article and if i posted it then my post will get deleted, but anyway, whats your point in posting it, do you support ending the israelian colonization or do you want it to continue ???
you are confusing me, so pick a side ;)
Nope, that long article wasn't an article. It's an official UN site. Like government announcements, it's meant to be shared.
Contrary to your claim about Nasser, it certainly wasn't just Egypt. Nope, it was Jordan and Syria also. Material support for the aggressors was given by Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria. They'd surrounded Israel, what they didn't count on was being out manned, out gunned, and out thought. Israel won. They will keep enough land to provide buffer and warning-it's what keeps them relatively safe from the missiles from Syria that continue to this day. It's the price the losers/aggressors pay for their aggression.
Someday perhaps, the surrounding countries will acknowledge the right to exist for Israel. If and when that occurs, so may peace between all. Now, what about Egypt giving those poor, displaced, peace-loving Palestinians a home?
Nope, that long article wasn't an article. It's an official UN site. Like government announcements, it's meant to be shared.
Contrary to your claim about Nasser, it certainly wasn't just Egypt. Nope, it was Jordan and Syria also. Material support for the aggressors was given by Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria. They'd surrounded Israel, what they didn't count on was being out manned, out gunned, and out thought. Israel won. They will keep enough land to provide buffer and warning-it's what keeps them relatively safe from the missiles from Syria that continue to this day. It's the price the losers/aggressors pay for their aggression.
Someday perhaps, the surrounding countries will acknowledge the right to exist for Israel. If and when that occurs, so may peace between all. Now, what about Egypt giving those poor, displaced, peace-loving Palestinians a home?
again with the usual suggestion :lame2:
how about israel (the one who stole the land) giving those displaced, peace-loving Palestinians their home BACK.
missiles from syria that continue to this day ???, where have you read that :rolleyes:, i dont see any missiles coming from syria at all so stop inventing false facts. :poke:.
"They will keep enough land to provide buffer and warning"
where in the international law is it said that this is allowed ?
aggressors ?, again you say, but how can they be aggressors, just by moving their army, does that make them aggressor, the law allows everyone to move his forces wherever he want inside his own borders, that is not an act of aggression, even if the war is Preemptive, that doesnt make it defensive, because preemptive is only about speculation, not sure evidence of aggression from the other side, so its doesnt count as defensive war, so the lands which was taken during the preemptive war should be returned.
you cant start a war and call it preemptive then keep the land for yourself, if that is allowed, then whenever a country thinks that its neighbour is going to attack, it will launch a preemptive war and steal lands as it wish, if the other country doesnt start the aggression, then there is no way to call the war defensive.
preemptive war is just anticipation of aggression, not a response to the aggression, and anticipations can always be wrong.
namvet
12-13-2010, 01:44 PM
I love when I read about the US helping Israel defend itself and it's security against Palestinian terrorists.
me to. if anything Israel should be helping Osama with terrorists here
namvet
12-13-2010, 01:48 PM
So you think all palestinians are terrorists ?
the terrorists have a gun to the palestinians head. now what????
namvet
12-13-2010, 01:56 PM
again with the usual suggestion :lame2:
how about israel (the one who stole the land) giving those displaced, peace-loving Palestinians their home BACK.
missiles from syria that continue to this day ???, where have you read that :rolleyes:, i dont see any missiles coming from syria at all so stop inventing false facts. :poke:.
"They will keep enough land to provide buffer and warning"
where in the international law is it said that this is allowed ?
aggressors ?, again you say, but how can they be aggressors, just by moving their army, does that make them aggressor, the law allows everyone to move his forces wherever he want inside his own borders, that is not an act of aggression, even if the war is Preemptive, that doesnt make it defensive, because preemptive is only about speculation, not sure evidence of aggression from the other side, so its doesnt count as defensive war, so the lands which was taken during the preemptive war should be returned.
you cant start a war and call it preemptive then keep the land for yourself, if that is allowed, then whenever a country thinks that its neighbour is going to attack, it will launch a preemptive war and steal lands as it wish, if the other country doesnt start the aggression, then there is no way to call the war defensive.
preemptive war is just anticipation of aggression, not a response to the aggression, and anticipations can always be wrong.
missiles from syria that continue to this day
that's right bubba. its old news. Syria has supplied missiles and weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah for years
fj1200
12-13-2010, 02:02 PM
Read the Full article:
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/us-inability-to-rein-in-israel-will-fuel-extremism-in-region-1.727307
Is Israel's Palestinian policy, or the US's support of Israel, REALLY the source of extremism against the US/Israel for the average Muslim on the street?
Kathianne
12-13-2010, 02:07 PM
again with the usual suggestion :lame2:
how about israel (the one who stole the land) giving those displaced, peace-loving Palestinians their home BACK.
missiles from syria that continue to this day ???, where have you read that :rolleyes:, i dont see any missiles coming from syria at all so stop inventing false facts. :poke:.
"They will keep enough land to provide buffer and warning"
where in the international law is it said that this is allowed ?
aggressors ?, again you say, but how can they be aggressors, just by moving their army, does that make them aggressor, the law allows everyone to move his forces wherever he want inside his own borders, that is not an act of aggression, even if the war is Preemptive, that doesnt make it defensive, because preemptive is only about speculation, not sure evidence of aggression from the other side, so its doesnt count as defensive war, so the lands which was taken during the preemptive war should be returned.
you cant start a war and call it preemptive then keep the land for yourself, if that is allowed, then whenever a country thinks that its neighbour is going to attack, it will launch a preemptive war and steal lands as it wish, if the other country doesnt start the aggression, then there is no way to call the war defensive.
preemptive war is just anticipation of aggression, not a response to the aggression, and anticipations can always be wrong.
Missiles from Iran, through Syria, Iran's proxy, into Hizbollah's hands in Lebanon, the Syrian proxy.
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Heated+Mideast+pressures+West+develop+plan/3966998/story.html
Land won in a war, belongs to the victor, it never was 'Palestinian land.' That Israel struck first when surrounded, was not an aggressive move, anymore than US reacting to USSR missiles in Cuba.
BTW, your attitude is reflective of how the discussions in the ME have gone, getting nowhere for the people.
Nukeman
12-13-2010, 02:39 PM
I have to ask the question of WHO decided it was up to the US to "tell" Isreal what to do?? Or is that just an easy scapegoat to get at the "great satan" in the west???
I don't understand how, if WE sell arms to Isreal we are resonsible for their actions... does this go for all that we sell arms to and have dealings with???
KarlMarx
12-13-2010, 06:06 PM
abso...
You're probably a nice guy, but you and other Moslems, probably most Moslems, have a real problem. The fact is that you hate Jews, that's about the size of it.
Members of your religion have embraced violence to achieve their ends and the moderate ones amongst you don't raise even a whimper in protest. In this country we have a saying "Silence is consent". You either agree with those lunatic extremists, or you don't have the manhood to stand up to them.
Then Moslems wonder why we here in America view you and your religion with such suspicion and call you names like "bomb boy". We have another saying in this country... "if they shoe fits, wear it".
So long as you keep posting your vitriol against Israel, many of us will just think of you as just another anti-Semitic Moslem.
There will never be peace in the Middle East until Jews and Moslems learn to get along. That means, it takes two to tango, meaning that if you want peace, put your hatred to one side.
If you love your children, you and your fellow Moslems will start to recognize the hatred you have for Jews and do something about it. Otherwise, all you will leave your children is war, hatred, more violence, and, more hatred.
And that, as Walter Cronkite, an American journalist used to say , is the way that it is.
SassyLady
12-13-2010, 06:08 PM
I have to ask the question of WHO decided it was up to the US to "tell" Isreal what to do?? Or is that just an easy scapegoat to get at the "great satan" in the west???
I don't understand how, if WE sell arms to Isreal we are resonsible for their actions... does this go for all that we sell arms to and have dealings with???
must spread rep Nukeman!!!
:clap::clap:
Pagan
12-13-2010, 07:15 PM
abso...
You're probably a nice guy, but you and other Moslems, probably most Moslems, have a real problem. The fact is that you hate Jews, that's about the size of it.
Members of your religion have embraced violence to achieve their ends and the moderate ones amongst you don't raise even a whimper in protest. In this country we have a saying "Silence is consent". You either agree with those lunatic extremists, or you don't have the manhood to stand up to them.
Then Moslems wonder why we here in America view you and your religion with such suspicion and call you names like "bomb boy". We have another saying in this country... "if they shoe fits, wear it".
So long as you keep posting your vitriol against Israel, many of us will just think of you as just another anti-Semitic Moslem.
There will never be peace in the Middle East until Jews and Moslems learn to get along. That means, it takes two to tango, meaning that if you want peace, put your hatred to one side.
If you love your children, you and your fellow Moslems will start to recognize the hatred you have for Jews and do something about it. Otherwise, all you will leave your children is war, hatred, more violence, and, more hatred.
And that, as Walter Cronkite, an American journalist used to say , is the way that it is.
It runs very deep on BOTH sides is neither innocent for both commit horrendous acts.
I have to ask the question of WHO decided it was up to the US to "tell" Isreal what to do?? Or is that just an easy scapegoat to get at the "great satan" in the west???
I don't understand how, if WE sell arms to Isreal we are resonsible for their actions... does this go for all that we sell arms to and have dealings with???
actually yes its up to you, because you provide them with weapons and aid money, and USA would never provide weapons to someone that doesnt comply with their policies, or then USA would just be an arms dealer in the black market who doesn't care what his customers do with the merchandise.
USA would never provide egypt with weapons if egypt is going to launch a war which is against USA best interests, and right now, israel is doing everything against USA interests, if your only interest is israel safety, then i would say that what israel is doing is endangering your own safety, and that 9/11 was a direct responce from stupid terrorists to your support to israel, if you dont see any danger in supporting israel yet, then its okay with me, i dont really care if USA is supporting israel or not, i am just saying that this is one of the main causes of terrorism against USA, US is endagering its people to protect israel from the people whom israel stole the land from.
and actually its the main reasons for terrorism in egypt too, because egypt is an ally of USA, terrorists attack us because they hate US and we are their friends, thats the main reason for terrorism in egypt, thats what happens.
Israel occupy lands -----> Terrorists attack Israel
US support israel colonization -----> Terrorists attack USA
Egypt befriends USA ----> Terrorists attack Egypt
so in short:
because israel doesnt want to return the land, americans are paying their lifes and money for it.
i dont like that, and i dont want any more lifes to be wasted, be it american or israelian or arab, i dont like to see anyone dying, and what i am saying is for the best of everyone, that the stolen land to be returned, and the lost peace to be restored.
SassyLady
12-14-2010, 03:21 AM
i dont like that, and i dont want any more lifes to be wasted, be it american or israelian or arab, i dont like to see anyone dying, and what i am saying is for the best of everyone, that the stolen land to be returned, and the lost peace to be restored.
The land was not stolen ... it was forfeited during the war.
If Israel returns the land and sets a precedent, then Mexico will want to reclaim their portion of the US, and then France will want to reclaim their portion, and most of Europe would have to be returned to the original land owners that lost them during times of war, which could go back centuries .....how far back do you think this precedent should go?
Israel was threatened because the other countries thought they could bully it...Israel called their bluff and the land was the forfeit paid by those who were unable to back their threats.
Perhaps the best thing for everyone, all over the world, is for the Palestinians to accept things the way they are and ask the Muslim world to let it go.....and never threaten Israel again....could backfire again and Israel might gain more land.
abso...
You're probably a nice guy, but you and other Moslems, probably most Moslems, have a real problem. The fact is that you hate Jews, that's about the size of it.
Members of your religion have embraced violence to achieve their ends and the moderate ones amongst you don't raise even a whimper in protest. In this country we have a saying "Silence is consent". You either agree with those lunatic extremists, or you don't have the manhood to stand up to them.
Then Moslems wonder why we here in America view you and your religion with such suspicion and call you names like "bomb boy". We have another saying in this country... "if they shoe fits, wear it".
So long as you keep posting your vitriol against Israel, many of us will just think of you as just another anti-Semitic Moslem.
There will never be peace in the Middle East until Jews and Moslems learn to get along. That means, it takes two to tango, meaning that if you want peace, put your hatred to one side.
If you love your children, you and your fellow Moslems will start to recognize the hatred you have for Jews and do something about it. Otherwise, all you will leave your children is war, hatred, more violence, and, more hatred.
And that, as Walter Cronkite, an American journalist used to say , is the way that it is.
Me being a nice guy, yes i like to think so ;)
Me hating jews, never did and never will :no:
Other muslims hating jews, you should ask yourself why ? :confused:
Muslims embracing violence, you should ask yourself why would they do that ? :confused:
Moderate Muslims dont protest, who said that and why would you assume that !!!!! :no:
Silence is consent, i agree, we also have the same saying, i wonder who stayed silent when israel killed 1400 innocents in Gaza !!! :rolleyes:
Calling me bomb boy, just a childish act, i dont care. :)
Vitriol against Israel, its my opinion and its doesn't make me anti-semitic, i am just against israel actions not the jews, there is a difference.
Muslims and Jews, its nice that you acknowledge that israel needs to want peace too, not just us, but if they want it, then they would return the land.
Put my hatred aside, i dont have any hatred for anyone to put aside, a muslim who hates jews will hate US too, and if i hate US then i wont be talking to you in this board.
If i love my children, dont have them yet, but i do love babies more than anyone can imagine, probably will love them more than my future wife will. ;)
Me recognizing hatred, sorry, dont have any to recognize it, when i hate someone, i will let you know.
War, Hatred, and Violence, that what happens when you occupy someones land, they will never let go, israel return the land then muslims will be okay with israel.
The way that it is, yes, i agree, as long as land is stolen, it will always be war for it, you would do the same if its your own land, wont you ? :salute:
The land was not stolen ... it was forfeited during the war.
If Israel returns the land and sets a precedent, then Mexico will want to reclaim their portion of the US, and then France will want to reclaim their portion, and most of Europe would have to be returned to the original land owners that lost them during times of war, which could go back centuries .....how far back do you think this precedent should go?
Israel was threatened because the other countries thought they could bully it...Israel called their bluff and the land was the forfeit paid by those who were unable to back their threats.
Perhaps the best thing for everyone, all over the world, is for the Palestinians to accept things the way they are and ask the Muslim world to let it go.....and never threaten Israel again....could backfire again and Israel might gain more land.
i am not talking about ancient history, i am talking about a modern war, which is still going right now.
maybe you think that palestinians would just forget about their land, but they wont, neither will i if i were in their place.
egypt didn't forget about its land and we fought for it, with army and politics, even when israel wanted to keep a tiny little piece called Taba, egypt fought for it politicaly and got it back in 1988, its just a very small piece, but we dont let go of any of our lands, thats the way we are, we got a court verdict, we got Taba back, so the same as egyptians did, dont expect any arab to let go of his land.
letting go of the land isnt an option
moving palestinians into egypt isnt an option
moving palestinians into jordan isnt an option
the only option is the right way, to return the land, then we all live together peacefully.
maybe there will be another war as you say, and maybe israel will gain more land or will lose all of its land, none knows, but the fact is that we all dont want any more wars, so lets hope for peace.
Missiles from Iran, through Syria, Iran's proxy, into Hizbollah's hands in Lebanon, the Syrian proxy.
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Heated+Mideast+pressures+West+develop+plan/3966998/story.html
Land won in a war, belongs to the victor, it never was 'Palestinian land.' That Israel struck first when surrounded, was not an aggressive move, anymore than US reacting to USSR missiles in Cuba.
BTW, your attitude is reflective of how the discussions in the ME have gone, getting nowhere for the people.
if land won in war belongs to the victor, then there is no need for international law anymore, we all should fight each other to gain more land.
was never palestinian land ?, okay ;)
with all due respect, if you dont like my attitude (which i try to keep it respectable) or opinions, you dont have any obligation to discuss anything with me, feel free to ignore me, have a nice day :salute:
Is Israel's Palestinian policy, or the US's support of Israel, REALLY the source of extremism against the US/Israel for the average Muslim on the street?
not just for the average muslim on street, its for the terrorists themselfs, thats the reason they attack US.
1- US army bases in ME
2- Blind Support for israel
SassyLady
12-14-2010, 03:54 AM
i am not talking about ancient history, i am talking about a modern war, which is still going right now.
maybe you think that palestinians would just forget about their land, but they wont, neither will i if i were in their place.
egypt didn't forget about its land and we fought for it, with army and politics, even when israel wanted to keep a tiny little piece called Taba, egypt fought for it politicaly and got it back in 1988, its just a very small piece, but we dont let go of any of our lands, thats the way we are, we got a court verdict, we got Taba back, so the same as egyptians did, dont expect any arab to let go of his land.
letting go of the land isnt an option
moving palestinians into egypt isnt an option
moving palestinians into jordan isnt an option
the only option is the right way, to return the land, then we all live together peacefully.
maybe there will be another war as you say, and maybe israel will gain more land or will lose all of its land, none knows, but the fact is that we all dont want any more wars, so lets hope for peace.
How much of the land Israel currently has do you think they should give back? All of Israel?
How much of the land Israel currently has do you think they should give back? All of Israel?
NO, not all of israel, just the occupied territories.
i remeber that i answered to you, they are four areas,
West Bank
Gaza Strip
the Golan Heights
East Jerusalem
those four areas are recognized by EU and USA to be occupied areas, and by international law, they should be returned to their owners, but Israel doesnt agree with that and doesnt want to return them.
and by moving civilians into those area israel is breaking the international law:
The establishment of Israeli settlements are held to constitute a transfer of Israel's civilian population into the occupied territories and as such are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Palestine Yearbook of International Law (1998–1999) said "the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."
In 2004 the International Court of Justice, in an advisory, non-binding opinion—noted that the Security Council had described Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court also concluded that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law and that all the States parties to the Geneva Convention are under an obligation to ensure compliance by Israel with international law as embodied in the Convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories#War_crimes_allegations
SassyLady
12-14-2010, 04:13 AM
NO, not all of israel, just the occupied territories.
i remeber that i answered to you, they are four areas,
West Bank
Gaza Strip
the Golan Heights
East Jerusalem
those four areas are recognized by EU and USA to be occupied areas, and by international law, they should be returned to their owners, but Israel doesnt agree with that and doesnt want to return them.
and by moving civilians into those area israel is breaking the international law:
The establishment of Israeli settlements are held to constitute a transfer of Israel's civilian population into the occupied territories and as such are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Palestine Yearbook of International Law (1998–1999) said "the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."
In 2004 the International Court of Justice, in an advisory, non-binding opinion—noted that the Security Council had described Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court also concluded that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law and that all the States parties to the Geneva Convention are under an obligation to ensure compliance by Israel with international law as embodied in the Convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories#War_crimes_allegations
And which international law was Egypt, Jordan and Syria breaking when they made plans to attack Israel?
And which international law was Egypt, Jordan and Syria breaking when they made plans to attack Israel?
none, planning to attack someone isnt a violation of any law.
and as i said, there were no plans to attack from the egyptian side, you would like to beleive so, but that isnt true, most of all family have been in the army, and i have personally spoken with some old retired generals of the egyptian army who were in the army at that time.
egypt just massed its troops on the border because of the false russian info that said that israel is massing its troops on the syrian borders, so Nasser was obligated to mass his troops because of the mutual defensive pact between us and syria, but he knew that he didnt have enough weapons, he just had a larger army in numbers, but with very old tech weapons that cant compete with the advanced american weapons given to israel at that time, so he hoped that israel would back down then he wont have to go to war with a nearly destroyed army.
all the talk the you find in the media about Nasser intentions to go to war with israel, was just for the egyptian army, to encourage them and give them enthusiasm in case we actually go to war, just for the press, not what he actually believed of intended.
USSR never agreed to give egypt its latest weapons like US is doing with israel, thats why Sadat got tired from them before 1973 war and kicked their experts out, even weapon shipments which were scheduled to arrive before the war got late, and we had to go to the 1973 war without them, thats why Sadat ended our friendship with USSR and formed strong relations with USA, because USSR have let us down and didnt provide us with adequate weapons.
SassyLady
12-14-2010, 05:04 AM
none, planning to attack someone isnt a violation of any law.
and as i said, there were no plans to attack from the egyptian side, you would like to beleive so, but that isnt true, most of all family have been in the army, and i have personally spoken with some old retired generals of the egyptian army who were in the army at that time.
egypt just massed its troops on the border because of the false russian info that said that israel is massing its troops on the syrian borders, so Nasser was obligated to mass his troops because of the mutual defensive pact between us and syria, but he knew that he didnt have enough weapons, he just had a larger army in numbers, but with very old tech weapons that cant compete with the advanced american weapons given to israel at that time, so he hoped that israel would back down then he wont have to go to war with a nearly destroyed army.
all the talk the you find in the media about Nasser intentions to go to war with israel, was just for the egyptian army, to encourage them and give them enthusiasm in case we actually go to war, just for the press, not what he actually believed of intended.
USSR never agreed to give egypt its latest weapons like US is doing with israel, thats why Sadat got tired from them before 1973 war and kicked their experts out, even weapon shipments which were scheduled to arrive before the war got late, and we had to go to the 1973 war without them, thats why Sadat ended our friendship with USSR and formed strong relations with USA, because USSR have let us down and didnt provide us with adequate weapons.
Not only did Nassar start massing his troops on the border but he closed the Straits after Israel said it would be a declaration of war. To me, that is saying, "bring it on", which Israel did. Nassar should never signed the pact with Jordan and Syria....and he should not have moved some of his troops to Jordan to help them. He knew that Iraq had also moved troops into Jordan and he sent some of his to help.
Israel would have been stupid to wait for Jordan or Egypt to attack.
Not only did Nassar start massing his troops on the border but he closed the Straits after Israel said it would be a declaration of war. To me, that is saying, "bring it on", which Israel did. Nassar should never signed the pact with Jordan and Syria....and he should not have moved some of his troops to Jordan to help them. He knew that Iraq had also moved troops into Jordan and he sent some of his to help.
Israel would have been stupid to wait for Jordan or Egypt to attack.
would have been stupid, but also would have been right.
as i said, there was tension at that time, Nasser didnt know if israel is going to war or not, he had to do what he did, he had no other options.
he closed the Straits to stop any shipments to arrive to israel, that is a natural response to the info that was sent to him from the USSR.
In a letter written to the New York Times in June 1967 lawyer Roger Fisher argued that:
The United Arab Republic had a good legal case for restricting traffic through the Strait of Tiran. First it is debatable whether international law confers any right of innocent passage through such a waterway.... {Secondly]... a right of innocent passage is not a right of free passage for any cargo at any time. In the words of the Convention on the Territorial Sea: 'Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state... taking the facts as they were I, as an international lawyer, would rather defend before the International Court of Justice the legality of the U.A.R's action in closing the Strait of Tiran than to argue the other side of the case...
closing the straits was the only response, it was for security reasons, israel has no right to pass any cargo at its whim, if we believe that the cargo can carry weapons which will be used against us, then we have the right to protect ourselfs by closing the straits, US would do the same if it was in our situation.
so closing the straits wasnt an aggressive move, it was the only response to the info we had at that time, if you have an info that a country is going to war against you, then you will do everything in your ability to prevent that and to protect yourself, but that didnt involve firing the first shot, because we would ever do that.
---------------------------------------------------------
Yitzhak Rabin reported that the cabinet was deadlocked over the issue of the blockade.
Interior Minister Haim-Moshe Shapira in particular had pointed out that the Straits had been closed from 1951 to 1956 without the situation endangering Israel's security.
In a 30 March 1968 Ma’ariv interview Defense Minister Moshe Dayan explained: "What do you mean, [the war was] unavoidable? It was, of course, possible to avoid the war if the Straits [of Tiran] had stayed closed to Israeli shipping.
The U.S. also tried to mediate, and Nasser agreed to send his vice-president to Washington to explore a diplomatic settlement. Most American diplomats who worked in the Middle East were sympathetic to Nasser's views on the Straits, with several of them arguing that the U.S. should ignore both its on-the-record promises to Israel regarding the Straits being open and international law; a few diplomats who were not as impressed by threats from Arab nations advised the Johnson Administration to back the flotilla option as a "show of force" that would forestall war from breaking out. The meeting did not happen because Israel launched its offensive.
On May 25, 1967, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban landed in Washington “with instructions to discuss American plans to re-open the Strait of Tiran”. As soon as he arrived, he was given new instructions in a cable from the Israeli government. The cable said that Israel had learned of an imminent Egyptian attack, which overshadowed the blockade. No longer was he to emphasize the strait issue; he was instructed to ‘inform the highest authorities of this new threat and to request an official statement from the United States that an attack on Israel would be viewed as an attack on the United States.”According to most sources, including those involved, the new instructions were sent at the instigation of Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, who was eager to force an American decision – either Johnson would have to commit to specific American action then, or Israel would be free to act on its own. Historian Michael Oren explains Eban's reaction to the new instructions: "Eban was livid. Unconvinced that Nasser was either determined or even able to attack, he now saw Israelis inflating the Egyptian threat - and flaunting their weakness - in order to extract a pledge that the President, Congress-bound, could never make." He described the cable as an '... act of momentous irresponsibility... eccentric...' which 'lacked wisdom, veracity and tactical understanding,' and later came to the conclusion that the genesis of the cable was Rabin's indecisive state of mind.
Despite his own skepticism, Eban followed his instructions during his first meeting with Secretary Rusk, Under Secretary Rostow, and Assistant Secretary Lucius Battle. American intelligence experts spent the night analyzing each of the Israeli claims. On May 26, Eban met with United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and finally with President Lyndon B. Johnson. In a memo to the President, Rusk rejected the claim of an Egyptian and Syrian attack being imminent, plainly stating "our intelligence does not confirm [the] Israeli estimate".
According to declassified documents from the Johnson Presidential Library, President Johnson and other top officials in the administration did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable. "All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them", Johnson told Eban during a visit to the White House on May 26.
This assertion was made in accordance with a CIA assessment that Israel could “defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts . . . or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth." Consequently, Johnson declined to airlift special military supplies to Israel or even to publicly support it. Eban left the White House distraught.
In a lecture given in 2002, Oren said, "Johnson sat around with his advisors and said, ‘What if their intelligence sources are better than ours?’ Johnson decided to fire off a Hotline message to his counterpart in the Kremlin, Alexei Kosygin, in which he said, ‘We've heard from the Israelis, but we can't corroborate it, that your proxies in the Middle East, the Egyptians, plan to launch an attack against Israel in the next 48 hours. If you don't want to start a global crisis, prevent them from doing that.’ At 2:30 a.m. on May 27, Soviet Ambassador to Egypt Dimitri Pojidaev knocked on Nasser's door and read him a personal letter from Kosygin in which he said, ‘We don't want Egypt to be blamed for starting a war in the Middle East. If you launch that attack, we cannot support you.’ Amer consulted his sources in the Kremlin, and they corroborated the substance of Kosygin's message. Despondent, Amer told the commander of Egypt's air force, Major General Mahmud Sidqi, that the operation was cancelled." According to then Egyptian Vice-President Hussein el-Shafei, as soon as Nasser knew what Amer planned, he cancelled the operation.
On May 30, Nasser responded to Johnson's request of 11 days earlier and agreed to send his Vice President, Zakkariya Muhieddin, to Washington on June 7 to explore a diplomatic settlement in "precisely the opening the White House had sought". Historian Michael Oren writes that Rusk was "mad as hell" and that Johnson later wrote "I have never concealed my regret that Israel decided to move when it did".
Within Israel's political leadership, it was decided that if the US would not act, and if the UN could not act, then Israel would have to act. On 1 June, Moshe Dayan was made Israeli Defense Minister, and on June 3 the Johnson administration gave an ambiguous statement; Israel continued to prepare for war. Israel's attack against Egypt on June 5 began what would later be dubbed the Six-Day War. According to Martin van Creveld, the IDF pressed for war: "...the concept of 'defensible borders' was not even part of the IDFs own vocabulary. Anyone who will look for it in the military literature of the time will do so in vain. Instead, Israel's commanders based their thought on the 1948 war and, especially, their 1956 triumph over the Egyptians in which, from then Chief of Staff Dayan down, they had gained their spurs. When the 1967 crisis broke they felt certain of their ability to win a 'decisive, quick and elegant' victory, as one of their number, General Haim Bar Lev, put it, and pressed the government to start the war as soon as possible". Some of Israel's political leaders, however, hoped for a diplomatic solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
read it carefully....
Nasser was told by USSR not to start the war and he agreed, and he was also told by USA not to start the war and again he agreed, only to see Israel starting the war, that is what happened, believe it or not, its the facts.
Amer wanted war, but Nasser cancelled his plans, he agreed to send his vice president to USA for diplomatic solution, but Israel attacked even before the meeting takes place, Nasser was obligated by his promise to USSR and USA that he wont start the war, but it seems that Israel wasnt obligated by anything.
Kathianne
12-14-2010, 05:55 AM
if land won in war belongs to the victor, then there is no need for international law anymore, we all should fight each other to gain more land.
was never palestinian land ?, okay ;)
with all due respect, if you dont like my attitude (which i try to keep it respectable) or opinions, you dont have any obligation to discuss anything with me, feel free to ignore me, have a nice day :salute:
I don't think you would like your attitude, if you saw it for what it was. You slip in figures like the 1400 innocents killed by ISRAEL in Gaza. Some probably wonder what that was, so here:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/06/gazaisrael-hamas-rocket-attacks-civilians-unlawful
Gaza/Israel: Hamas Rocket Attacks on Civilians Unlawful
Launches from Populated Areas Endanger Israelis and Palestinians
August 6, 2009
Hamas rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians are unlawful and unjustifiable, and amount to war crimes. As the governing authority in Gaza, Hamas should publicly renounce rocket attacks on Israeli civilian centers and punish those responsible, including members of its own armed wing.
Iain Levine, program director at Human Rights Watch
(Jerusalem) - Hamas should repudiate unlawful rocket attacks against Israeli population centers and hold those responsible for them to account, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have over several years launched thousands of rockets at Israeli cities and towns, including hundreds during Israel's three-week military offensive in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009. A UN fact-finding investigation into serious violations of the laws of war by both sides in the Gaza conflict, led by Judge Richard Goldstone, is due to report back to the UN Human Rights Council in September....
Kathianne
12-14-2010, 05:59 AM
if land won in war belongs to the victor, then there is no need for international law anymore, we all should fight each other to gain more land.
was never palestinian land ?, okay ;)
with all due respect, if you dont like my attitude (which i try to keep it respectable) or opinions, you dont have any obligation to discuss anything with me, feel free to ignore me, have a nice day :salute:
Funny how Palestinians turn to the UN for condemnations of Israel and use those from the stacked deck to try to turn this into a legal defense via international law. They turn to US to force Israel to do their bidding, all the while claiming US is doing Israel's bidding. Now if for one moment those leaders were convinced of the duplicity assumed by civilians in the region, do you really think that the US was an instigator? Hmmm? Has it ever dawned on you that perhaps you are being fed more than a few lies by the leaders?
I don't think you would like your attitude, if you saw it for what it was. You slip in figures like the 1400 innocents killed by ISRAEL in Gaza. Some probably wonder what that was, so here:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/06/gazaisrael-hamas-rocket-attacks-civilians-unlawful
i dont agree with rocket attacks and never will, but the fact is that israel is occupying palestinian lands, and the stupid people who use the rockets as method of resistence, believe that they are resisting the occupation, so i condemn them for their method, not their goal.
but about israel, it have two goals and one method, a goal to protect its civilians, and a goal to keep the occupied lands, and a method of killing alot of palestinains to make them stop.
so i condemn israel for its method, and also for their goal of keeping an occupied land, but i agree with them that they should protect their civilians.
Funny how Palestinians turn to the UN for condemnations of Israel and use those from the stacked deck to try to turn this into a legal defense via international law. They turn to US to force Israel to do their bidding, all the while claiming US is doing Israel's bidding. Now if for one moment those leaders were convinced of the duplicity assumed by civilians in the region, do you really think that the US was an instigator? Hmmm? Has it ever dawned on you that perhaps you are being fed more than a few lies by the leaders?
the problem is that you dont even acknowledge that palestinians is not one party.
the PLO wants peace with israel, and they are asking for the land in exchange for peace, but israel is refusing, and that is actually empowering Hamas.
the more israel refuses to give the land back, the more palestinians are in favour of Hamas, because they find no result in what PLO is trying to do
so there are two side, PLO and Hamas, PLO has peaceful means, while Hamas got tired of talking and just fight, and by refusing to give the land back in exchange for peace, Israel is just telling the palestinians that there are no point in the negotiations that PLO is trying to make, and that they just have to give up and lose hope, and that is what people who join hamas does, they lost hope in negotiations and they lost all the hope that israel will return the land peacefully.
Kathianne
12-14-2010, 06:14 AM
the problem is that you dont even acknowledge that palestinians is not one party.
the PLO wants peace with israel, and they are asking for the land in exchange for peace, but israel is refusing, and that is actually empowering Hamas.
the more israel refuses to give the land back, the more palestinians are in favour of Hamas, because they find no result in what PLO is trying to do
so there are two side, PLO and Hamas, PLO has peaceful means, while Hamas got tired of talking and just fight, and by refusing to give the land back in exchange for peace, Israel is just telling the palestinians that there are no point in the negotiations that PLO is trying to make, and that they just have to give up and lose hope, and that is what people who join hamas does, they lost hope in negotiations and they lost all the hope that israel will return the land peacefully.
Abso you totally focus on the land, without any analysis of what led to the conflict which resulted on the conquering of land. You ignore that Syria was launching missiles, prior to the beginning of the war. How many conflicts from Arab states, with support from non-Arab Muslim states, prior to '67? What were the 'causes' of those earlier conflict? The existence of Israel was the cause. That cause has never been renounced by the current aggressors.
Abso you totally focus on the land, without any analysis of what led to the conflict which resulted on the conquering of land. You ignore that Syria was launching missiles, prior to the beginning of the war. How many conflicts from Arab states, with support from non-Arab Muslim states, prior to '67? What were the 'causes' of those earlier conflict? The existence of Israel was the cause. That cause has never been renounced by the current aggressors.
the earlier problems that you are talking about, is more complicated, and they are history, we wont achieve anything be discussing them and wasting days.
but i concentrate on the current issues, and what we can do about them, i often enjoy talking about history, any history of any kind about any subject, but nowdays i dont have much time to broaden my discussions even more, so i prefer to stay with a certain subject and discuss its implications in our time, not its roots in the past.
Kathianne
12-14-2010, 06:56 AM
the earlier problems that you are talking about, is more complicated, and they are history, we wont achieve anything be discussing them and wasting days.
but i concentrate on the current issues, and what we can do about them, i often enjoy talking about history, any history of any kind about any subject, but nowdays i dont have much time to broaden my discussions even more, so i prefer to stay with a certain subject and discuss its implications in our time, not its roots in the past.
No, we are talking from the time of 1948, which is not ancient history, in spite of the fact I wasn't born yet.
Choices and repercussions. Jordan flooded with refugees after '67 war, why? Their participation. Results, Jordan pushed towards moderation after.
No, we are talking from the time of 1948, which is not ancient history, in spite of the fact I wasn't born yet.
Choices and repercussions. Jordan flooded with refugees after '67 war, why? Their participation. Results, Jordan pushed towards moderation after.
if you still dont acknowledge that israel started 67 war, then there is no point in discussing it, as i said, USSR and USA asked Egypt not to start, and we complied with those requests, although we had info coming from our spy in israel that israel is going to attack, we abided by our promise, and we didnt start the attack, and as a result, all our fighters were destroyed on the ground by the suprise air attack.
avoiding the war was a possibility, but israel didnt want that chance, they wanted more land, and they took it, but dont keep saying that Egypt was going to attack while we promised your country that we wont, and Syria would have never attacked unless Egypt is going to attack along with it.
as for 1948, i know its not ancient history, but its an old war, that doesnt matter now, yes, it wasnt their land, and it wasnt their right to annex it and start a country in it in the first place, the british helped them, then they attacked the british with jewish terrorists, and palestinians tried to resist, egypt intervened with its army, egypt had a traitor in the palace who bought a defective weapons deal, the defective weapons hindered the ability of the egyptian army to win the battle, then the battle ended and the situation was stabilized and the state of israel became a fact.
then years passed, and the world now recognize an israelian state based on the 1967 borders, so all the conflicts happened before 1967 doesnt matter, because its not the issuse now, the land that israel had before 1967, is recognized by egypt, and many arab and islamic countries, so whats the point in talking about how they acquired this land, or what happened after that, acquired it by war or by peace or by any other mean, its theirs now, and everyone admits that, what do you want to discuss about things prior to 1967 !!!
jimnyc
12-14-2010, 08:36 AM
not just for the average muslim on street, its for the terrorists themselfs, thats the reason they attack US.
1- US army bases in ME
2- Blind Support for israel
Just left another thread and come to this one and again find you "making excuses" or understanding terrorist activity.
It's THIS type of lazy attitudes my fellow muslims that fuels these idiots. How about - they are fucking idiots and 100% wrong no matter their reasoning and should be exterminated like the filthy little brown cockroaches they are.
fj1200
12-14-2010, 09:56 AM
not just for the average muslim on street, its for the terrorists themselfs, thats the reason they attack US.
1- US army bases in ME
2- Blind Support for israel
3- Poverty?
4- Lack of economic freedom?
5- Stirred to anger?
Gaffer
12-14-2010, 10:20 AM
Well abso, it all seems to come down to one thing with you. The Land. The Land was given to Israel, the Land was wanted by Israel, the Land was taken by Israel. This sounds a lot like the old adage that once islam has conquered an area it must forever remain in islamic hands and if lost must be taken back. I suppose after Israel the muslums will be looking at Spain. After all it is Land.
Kathianne
12-14-2010, 04:41 PM
if you still dont acknowledge that israel started 67 war, then there is no point in discussing it, as i said, USSR and USA asked Egypt not to start, and we complied with those requests, although we had info coming from our spy in israel that israel is going to attack, we abided by our promise, and we didnt start the attack, and as a result, all our fighters were destroyed on the ground by the suprise air attack.
avoiding the war was a possibility, but israel didnt want that chance, they wanted more land, and they took it, but dont keep saying that Egypt was going to attack while we promised your country that we wont, and Syria would have never attacked unless Egypt is going to attack along with it.
as for 1948, i know its not ancient history, but its an old war, that doesnt matter now, yes, it wasnt their land, and it wasnt their right to annex it and start a country in it in the first place, the british helped them, then they attacked the british with jewish terrorists, and palestinians tried to resist, egypt intervened with its army, egypt had a traitor in the palace who bought a defective weapons deal, the defective weapons hindered the ability of the egyptian army to win the battle, then the battle ended and the situation was stabilized and the state of israel became a fact.
then years passed, and the world now recognize an israelian state based on the 1967 borders, so all the conflicts happened before 1967 doesnt matter, because its not the issuse now, the land that israel had before 1967, is recognized by egypt, and many arab and islamic countries, so whats the point in talking about how they acquired this land, or what happened after that, acquired it by war or by peace or by any other mean, its theirs now, and everyone admits that, what do you want to discuss about things prior to 1967 !!!
Wrong. While complicated you must understand all sides at that point in time. To do that you need to understand what went before. The '67 conflict exploded because of the past.
Wrong. While complicated you must understand all sides at that point in time. To do that you need to understand what went before. The '67 conflict exploded because of the past.
although Nasser lived through the past himself, and he fought himself in 1948 war, he prefered peace, and he promised not to start the war, but israel didnt.
Well abso, it all seems to come down to one thing with you. The Land. The Land was given to Israel, the Land was wanted by Israel, the Land was taken by Israel. This sounds a lot like the old adage that once islam has conquered an area it must forever remain in islamic hands and if lost must be taken back. I suppose after Israel the muslums will be looking at Spain. After all it is Land.
i am not talking about ancient history, nowdays none can steal land anymore, or annex it, we have international law now, laws like that didnt exist in the days of the crusades or the islamic wars or alexander or any other war.
Just left another thread and come to this one and again find you "making excuses" or understanding terrorist activity.
It's THIS type of lazy attitudes my fellow muslims that fuels these idiots. How about - they are fucking idiots and 100% wrong no matter their reasoning and should be exterminated like the filthy little brown cockroaches they are.
yes, they should be killed, but more will rise up, kill the new ones, and newer will come, its endless cycle, so do you really want to live through all that, and hear everyday about new innocents who died in a new terrorist operation just because you dont want to acknowledge the causes and solve the problems ?
Kathianne
12-14-2010, 08:31 PM
although Nasser lived through the past himself, and he fought himself in 1948 war, he prefered peace, and he promised not to start the war, but israel didnt.
Abso, it's obvious that no matter how many sources or telling from those who were around for said events, your mind is full of propaganda. Nasser in '48, '67, and later was not a 'peace-loving' guy. He always wanted the destruction of Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Attrition
Abso, it's obvious that no matter how many sources or telling from those who were around for said events, your mind is full of propaganda. Nasser in '48, '67, and later was not a 'peace-loving' guy. He always wanted the destruction of Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Attrition
Me !!!, i am not the one who is full of propaganda, i think that i know Nasser more than you do, and more than people who have been telling you about him.
I have posted all the sources that prove that Nasser promised that he is not going to attack first, and israel did, and in the assessment of your own country, the forces we pushed into Sinai was of defensive nature, we never intended to attack, and closing the straits to stop oil, was a natural response to the info that Nasser had about Israel intention to start war.
so if you think that you are smarter and more well informed than your CIA officials and all the high officials in your government at the time of the war, then its fine, stick with your wrong opinion as long as you wish :salute:
by the way, the war you are posting is the resistence to the israelian occupation of Sinai, whats your point in posting that, do you think that we should have sent them flowers with breakfast everyday for occupying our land ? :rolleyes:
Kathianne
12-15-2010, 05:52 AM
Me !!!, i am not the one who is full of propaganda, i think that i know Nasser more than you do, and more than people who have been telling you about him.
I have posted all the sources that prove that Nasser promised that he is not going to attack first, and israel did, and in the assessment of your own country, the forces we pushed into Sinai was of defensive nature, we never intended to attack, and closing the straits to stop oil, was a natural response to the info that Nasser had about Israel intention to start war.
so if you think that you are smarter and more well informed than your CIA officials and all the high officials in your government at the time of the war, then its fine, stick with your wrong opinion as long as you wish :salute:
by the way, the war you are posting is the resistence to the israelian occupation of Sinai, whats your point in posting that, do you think that we should have sent them flowers with breakfast everyday for occupying our land ? :rolleyes:
You don't know 'Nasser' better than anyone. I doubt you were alive when he was in power? So many times you accuse Americans of being brainwashed, yet here you sit, justifying violence now and in the past. You, educated by Egyptian schools, raised in Egyptian family, indoctrinated in Egyptian mosques, calling us brainwashed. Now that's a :laugh2:
You don't know 'Nasser' better than anyone. I doubt you were alive when he was in power? So many times you accuse Americans of being brainwashed, yet here you sit, justifying violence now and in the past. You, educated by Egyptian schools, raised in Egyptian family, indoctrinated in Egyptian mosques, calling us brainwashed. Now that's a
i have never justified any violence, i am just stating its reasons.
with all due respect to you, if you in your current age, doesnt have enough experience in life to know that everything has a reason, and you just think that all the terrorism in the world is without reason, then i am sorry to say that you are not a person who i would like to debate with.
Everything has a reason, and to fight something, you must understand its roots, eliminate the roots to eliminate the problem, but just kill the problem and leave the roots, they will just grow back again, and cause more problems than before.
if you are not willing to acknowledge that terrorism has reasons and we must solve them, then why are you debating in the first place, what are you trying to achieve, if you think that terrorism is a problem without cause, and if you think that arabs are just lunatics, then why are you talking to an arab like me ?
True that i was educated in egyptian school, but it was more like an american one, since all my studies through my life has been in english, and the fact that they have been teaching me english since i was 4 years old, and that most of my time is spent reading american books and watching american movies and series, i have watched more american movies than egyptian in my life.
yes, raised in egyptian family, is that a problem, do you think egyptian families are like terrorists organizations ?
indoctrinated in egyptian mosques, actually i rarely go to the mosque for anything than attend the friday prayer, something like going to church every sunday in christianity, except that i never go early to listen to the lesson told by the Imam, i just go late to pray then go back home, so i am not of the type that you would call strict religious muslim who stay alot in the mosque, as i said many times, my time is dedicated to my reading hobby, and my college, and internet, i am ashemd to admit that religion doesnt take much of my time but anyway, thats me.
i never called anyone brainwashed, but i said that its your choice to believe one side, because you like it better, but i have no favour of a side of the other, i am egyptian, but i read with open mind, i accept any fact that can convince me, i accept any fact that i cant dismiss with a stronger fact, i only talk with facts and info that i read, but i dont form my opinion based on my feelings.
no i wasnt alive when he was in power, but i am sure that i know him better than any of you.
Nasser was more of a Tyrant, that i can admit, we liked him because of his nationalism, but we also hated him for many things he allowed to happen to the egyptian people in his time, some things he knew about and other things were done behind his back, but the truth is that many egyptians hated his regime, many corrupt people have taken power in powerful positins, so as much as we loved him, he had his faults too.
i have read about Nasser, of course in school books, nothing bad is ever said about him, school books doesn't criticise historical figures or bring their faults to the discussion, to keep good models for the new youth to look up to, but i have never been dependant on what's said in school books, i have always read books that offered opinions against the government, i am always interested to know the other point of view, i never stick with one side, i have read about everything i know from every perspective i can, read about 67 from israelian and american and egyptian side, read about 73 from every side too, read about WWII, WWI, spanish-american war, american revolutionary war, although the latest two i nearly forgot everything about them since i read them 8 years ago when i was in 8th grade, and i read about economics and even read about great depression, basicly, all sorts of knowledge interests me, i read anything that can introduce a new knowledge to my life.
i even sent a suggestion once to dmp to start a general history forum were we can all post hitorical articles about any country in the world, because i am always interested in learning about the history of any country, in any aspect, be it economics or history or culture or technology or anything.
so i am very far from being brainwashed by any media, not the egyptian, and not the american, and not any other media, a person who is brainwashed is a person who only hears from one side, reads for one side, live his life being feed all the infrotmation only from one side, and never listens to the other side, while i always read for everyone and listen to everyone and thats the reason i am here on this board, because i always like to listen to the other side, but only when it can present me FACTS, not personal opinions coming from his own personal feelings.
jimnyc
12-15-2010, 07:48 AM
yes, they should be killed, but more will rise up, kill the new ones, and newer will come, its endless cycle, so do you really want to live through all that, and hear everyday about new innocents who died in a new terrorist operation just because you dont want to acknowledge the causes and solve the problems ?
So because a cockroach will reproduce if we attempt to kill it we should just learn to get along with them?
No, we should just use larger ammunition. We should not be PC and try to win the hearts and minds of these cockroaches. A cockroach is a cockroach and killing it is the only way. If more pop up, kill them instantly.
And I'm also not against nuking an entire nation if the people themselves are more interested in protecting the cockroaches than helping us eliminate them. Fuck 'em, wouldn't lose a wink of sleep.
So because a cockroach will reproduce if we attempt to kill it we should just learn to get along with them?
No, we should just use larger ammunition. We should not be PC and try to win the hearts and minds of these cockroaches. A cockroach is a cockroach and killing it is the only way. If more pop up, kill them instantly.
And I'm also not against nuking an entire nation if the people themselves are more interested in protecting the cockroaches than helping us eliminate them. Fuck 'em, wouldn't lose a wink of sleep.
comparing terorists to cockroaches is a childish thing to say, animals will never have any reasons to eliminate so that you can stop them from going into your house, they just get in.
but terrorists will always have reasons, reasons that we can eliminate to reduce their numbers.
as an example, a palestinian doctor, who works in an israelian hospital, he has 4 daughters, they were in their house in Gaza during Gaza war, a rocket was aimed at the house, 3 of his daughters killed, and the fourth one was in ICU, dont know if she survived or not.
so about that person, if he choosed terrorism, and you hear his story, wont you at least acknowlegde that he has some reason for what he will do, that he lost everything in his life, and he wants revenge, can you even imagine the feeling of having 4 daughters one night, and none in the next day.
personally i would have not been surprised at all if he had blown himself up the next day in the hospital, i would have not supported such action, i would have denounced it, but i wouldnt be surprised by it, and i wont be asking myself "Why would he do that?".
and by the way, that doctor didnt choose terrorism, i was just telling an example of a tragedy that may turn someone's life and make him choose terrorism
so i am not telling that example for any sympathy with terrorists at all, i am just saying that some tragedies in life, will always create more recruits for terrorism, and that tragedies are one of the main reasons for terrorism, and you should fight the reasons of a disease along with the side effects, you cant just keep taking pain killers and leave the disease to spread till it kills all of us.
jimnyc
12-15-2010, 08:32 AM
comparing terorists to cockroaches is a childish thing to say, animals will never have any reasons to eliminate so that you can stop them from going into your house, they just get in.
but terrorists will always have reasons, reasons that we can eliminate to reduce their numbers.
as an example, a palestinian doctor, who works in an israelian hospital, he has 4 daughters, they were in their house in Gaza during Gaza war, a rocket was aimed at the house, 3 of his daughters killed, and the fourth one was in ICU, dont know if she survived or not.
so about that person, if he choosed terrorism, and you hear his story, wont you at least acknowlegde that he has some reason for what he will do, that he lost everything in his life, and he wants revenge, can you even imagine the feeling of having 4 daughters one night, and none in the next day.
personally i would have not been surprised at all if he had blown himself up the next day in the hospital, i would have not supported such action, i would have denounced it, but i wouldnt be surprised by it, and i wont be asking myself "Why would he do that?".
and by the way, that doctor didnt choose terrorism, i was just telling an example of a tragedy that may turn someone's life and make him choose terrorism
so i am not telling that example for any sympathy with terrorists at all, i am just saying that some tragedies in life, will always create more recruits for terrorism, and that tragedies are one of the main reasons for terrorism, and you should fight the reasons of a disease along with the side effects, you cant just keep taking pain killers and leave the disease to spread till it kills all of us.
You are correct, I should apologize to the cockroaches, as at least they aren't blowing themselves up and having their comrades scream out "Allah Akbar!!"
Anyone who supports them, harbors them, hides them, sympathizes with them... are just the same.
BTW - the disease will spread and kill all of YOU - over here we don't have a rogue issue of people blowing themselves up. If you guys want to spread this trait from family to family, son to son, and it eventually kills all of you - OH FUCKING WELL! Again, no loss of sleep for me.
You are correct, I should apologize to the cockroaches, as at least they aren't blowing themselves up and having their comrades scream out "Allah Akbar!!"
Anyone who supports them, harbors them, hides them, sympathizes with them... are just the same.
BTW - the disease will spread and kill all of YOU - over here we don't have a rogue issue of people blowing themselves up. If you guys want to spread this trait from family to family, son to son, and it eventually kills all of you - OH FUCKING WELL! Again, no loss of sleep for me.
terrorism wont just kill arabs, it will kill americans too, terrorism kills everyone, when they place a bomb, they dont care who will enter the place, be it a muslim or christian or jew, they choosed violence and they dont care who dies in the process, they believe that killing muslims in the process doesnt matter as long as they get to kill americans, they DONT care.
jimnyc
12-15-2010, 09:09 AM
terrorism wont just kill arabs, it will kill americans too, terrorism kills everyone, when they place a bomb, they dont care who will enter the place, be it a muslim or christian or jew, they choosed violence and they dont care who dies in the process, they believe that killing muslims in the process doesnt matter as long as they get to kill americans, they DONT care.
We fell asleep and they got us ONCE. Out of THOUSANDS of terror attacks since 9/11, NONE have been on our soil. We are not in the stone age like you guys. We WILL fight and we WILL defeat terrorists if they choose to bring the fight to our shores.
In the mean time, if they choose to multiply and kill hundreds of thousands of arabs, I won't lose any sleep.
avatar4321
12-15-2010, 07:50 PM
First, we have no obligation to rein in any country. Israel is their own nation. They have their own sovereignty. We can certainly counsel them, but why the heck should they listen to us? They know what's in their best interests alot more than we do.
Second, Fuel extremism in the region? Seems to me that extremism is a regular occurance in the religion. Maybe they should learn to govern themselves rather than blaming the Jews (And the US) for their problems
Kathianne
04-04-2011, 10:02 AM
I don't think you would like your attitude, if you saw it for what it was. You slip in figures like the 1400 innocents killed by ISRAEL in Gaza. Some probably wonder what that was, so here:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/06/gazaisrael-hamas-rocket-attacks-civilians-unlawful
There are times I really miss Abso. Came across this WaPo article today, where Goldstone admits the Antisemitism of the UN Human Rights Commission and how he was duped by Hamas, key graphs but the whole thing is worth reading:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_print.html
...As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.
Some have charged that the process we followed did not live up to judicial standards. To be clear: Our mission was in no way a judicial or even quasi-judicial proceeding. We did not investigate criminal conduct on the part of any individual in Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. We made our recommendations based on the record before us, which unfortunately did not include any evidence provided by the Israeli government. Indeed, our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree; Hamas has done nothing.
Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.
In the end, asking Hamas to investigate may have been a mistaken enterprise. So, too, the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds...
Now that report has been used by campuses in US and Europe to cut off investments in Israel. It's also been used to bludgeon Israel more in the UN Security Council, but now for some reason, Goldstone is saying he was wrong, but didn't know.
Perhaps what's so ironic is that after the report was issued, Abso began to refer to it:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29240-The-Punishment-of-Gaza-by-Gideon-Levy&p=442209&highlight=Goldstone#post442209
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.